Search This Blog

the interim custody of the vehicle= In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the police stations. The vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the owner subject to certain terms and conditions. The Apex Court held that : 1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; 2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; 3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/crlp/crlp_11337_2013.html

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

Crl.P.No.11337/2013

ORAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking release of the auto bearing registration No. AP 20 TA 5074 in favour of the petitioner seized in Cr.No.289/2013 of Paloncha (T) Police Station, Khammam District, which was registered for an offence punishable under section 34(a) of the A.P. Excise Act.

2. The allegations in the report would disclose that on 10-8-13 at 4 PM the as per the instructions of the SHO, Paloncha Town Police Station, while the informant and another were going towards Old Paloncha, noticed one auto coming towards them. On observing the same, the accused who was driving the auto tried to escape. The informant and another chased him, intercepted the auto and on search, they found a bag containing illicit liquor. The Police seized the auto and illicit liquor in the presence of mediators.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits thatthere is every possibility of vehicle getting damaged if it is kept idle and exposed to sun and light, if the vehicle is not released in favour of the petitioner.

4. On instructions, the learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the petition but did not dispute the ownership of the vehicle.

5. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai V. State of Gujarat[1]the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in case of vehicles seized during investigation, they should not be allowed to deteriorate by being kept unused and unattended in the premises of the police stations. The vehicle has to be entrusted to the interim custody of the owner subject to certain terms and conditions. The Apex Court held that :

1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;

2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;

3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and

4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles.

6. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, and taking into consideration the fact of vehicle getting damaged if it is kept idle, it would be appropriate to grant interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on certain terms and conditions.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and

(1) the interim custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. AP 20 TA 5074 shall be given to the petitioner on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakhs only) with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.

(2) The petitioner shall produce the original RC of the vehicle before the concerned court.

(3) The petitioner shall not sell, alienate, mortgage or alter the physical features of the vehicle.

(4) The petitioner shall give an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the Magistrate.

The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Chandra Kumar Appeal Suit No.144 of 2012 Dated 9th August, 2012Judgment: The appellant filed this appeal challenging Order, dated27-01-2012, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, refusing to register the suit filed by him on the ground that the same is barred by limitation . The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance basing on agreement of sale, dated 13-11-2008. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, the balance amount of Rs.4 lakhs out of the total sale price of Rs.9 lakhs was to be paid within two months from the date of expiry of the limitation of the said agreement of sale. The case of the appellant is that though he had been requesting the respondent to receive the balance sale consideration and register the sale deed in his favour, the respondent did not come forward; that therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the respondent on12-10-2011; that the respondent acknowled…

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable =in VadirajNaggappa Vernekar (deceased by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate (supra), it is held as follows: "17. It is now well settled that the power to recall any witness underOrder 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion oron an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicatedhereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in theevidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear anyambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course,if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimatedecision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court topermit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in-chief with permis…

The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III
Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to
5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule
property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land
on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2
and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease
to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a
document …